Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC vs Spammers

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the vs-the-spam-kings dept.

binaryDigit writes "The San Jose Mercury News has an article on the FTC getting ready to take action on an (alleged) spammer. 'The Federal Trade Commission said today that after receiving about 46,000 complaints it had asked a federal judge to halt the operation.' Too bad it took 46000 complaints to prompt some action, but at least some action is being taken. The FTC will focus on the "deception" involved (innocent and misleading subject lines, bogus (but real) from/reply to addresses, etc)."

4 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. The FTC? What a Joke... by Justen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The FTC has become a joke lately. Even Congress thinks so (on the issue of privacy).

    From credit to business mergers to privacy, and, yes, spam, the FTC seems to always screw up something. (While the companies were busy forgetting due diligence, you can bet the FTC was, too...)

    They'll likely compile a list of all the email addresses that were spammed to and make them available to spammers.

    Now that's my government working for me!

    justen

  2. Spamassassin and recent false-negatives by trentfoley · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I run a small mail server with a dozen or so accounts. I have been using spamassassin for quite a while and it has been awesome.

    However, there have been a slew of recent spams that have made it through. The subject lines are simple things such as "Hello". This is also the same subject line of ALL of my mother's emails; after all, that's how she answers the phone. The content is nothing more than an image tag pointing to a screenshot of the ad. Spamassassin doesn't complain since there is not enough wrong with the email - they usually score around 1 or 2 (which is way too low to set a threshold, 5 is reasonable). I could alter the scoring rules, but that would create way too many false positives since many emails are just links to political cartoons and the like.

    I don't think bayesian filtering would help the problem.

    I keep forwarding them to uce@ftc.gov. Maybe I'll submit the 46,000th entry and win a prize!

  3. The FTC now says they can regulate spam by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The FTC's legal position is significant. Read the legal documents in the case. First, the FTC says they have the legislative authority to regulate spam, because they have the authority to regulate false or misleading advertising. Second, they don't draw a distinction between the spammer and the business being advertised:
    • Because the "Married But Lonely" spam forges the identity of the sender, it is unclear whether Westby sends the spam himself or whether he employs someone else to send it. Even if he does hire someone to send the spam, he is still liable for these practices. Westby is liable for deceptive or unfair practices he engages in himself or for those of his employees or agents who are acting on his behalf. Under the FTC Act, a principal is liable for misrepresentations made by agents with actual or apparent authority to make such representations, regardless of any unsuccessful efforts by the principal to prevent such misrepresentations.
    • See Southwest Sunsites, Inc. v. FTC, 785 F.2d 1431, 1438-39 (9th Cir. 1986); FTC v. Skybiz.com, Inc., 2001 WL 1673645, at *9 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 31, 2001); FTC v. Five-Star Auto Club, Inc., 97 F. Supp. 2d 502, 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). It is inappropriate for a principal to "`reap the fruits from their [agents'] acts and doings without incurring such liabilities as attach thereto."' Skybiz.com, 2001 WL 1673645, at *9 (quoting Goodman v. FTC, 244 F.2d 584, 591-92 (9th Cir. 1957)).
    Note what the FTC is saying. They don't even have to prove that the business being advertised by spam paid the spammer. If someone benefitted from the spam, the beneficiary is liable.

    If a court agrees, as is likely, you don't sue spammers any more. You go after the deep pocket - the business being advertised. This is going to bring spamming on behalf of legitimate businesses to a screeching halt.

  4. Re:Forward your spam to the FTC by tignom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read about this a while ago and uce@ftc.gov became my "public" email address. Whenever a website demands an email address and I know it's gonna end up on a spam list, I just let them send it directly to the ftc. At least they'll (maybe) give it the attention it deserves instead of just getting annoyed.

    Side note - I had to install Real Player on my work machine the other day (don't ask), and that address was already on their mailing list. So were all my backup addresses: abuse@site, webmaster@site, postmaster@site, root@site, abuse@aol.com, abuse@hotmail.com. Site is whatever site I'm visiting.